{"id":530,"date":"2018-02-17T17:43:03","date_gmt":"2018-02-18T01:43:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0028\/?p=530"},"modified":"2018-02-18T10:43:50","modified_gmt":"2018-02-18T18:43:50","slug":"mulling-relationships-change-management-leadership-in-my-digital-learning-context","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0028\/mulling-relationships-change-management-leadership-in-my-digital-learning-context\/","title":{"rendered":"Mulling Relationships: Change Management & Leadership in My Digital Learning Context"},"content":{"rendered":"

Managing change has become more complex over time. Upon reviewing articles about change management and managing change in digital learning environments, I gained an appreciation for the evolution of change models in response to this increase in complexity. It also allowed me to reflect on how some of the theory and models aligned with my own approach to leadership. This was helpful as I agree with Biech (2007) who asserts that theory, not techniques, will be easier to recall in situations that require change management and lead to a stronger ability to manage change. A unique set of challenges are faced by professionals in managing change for learning in digital environments, including myself. The resilience model by Weller & Anderson (2013) offers some attributes that I\u2019d consider using within my own context as a learning design contractor.<\/p>\n

Adaptation of Theories & Models for Current Technology, Economics and Societal Contexts<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"From 1947 to today, multiple shifts have occurred that affect how organizations manage change and therefore, how change models can be applicable to this change management. Change models have adapted by moving from three-step iterations of Lewin\u2019s three-step 1947 model to a new change perspective within Kotter\u2019s eight-step model in 1995.<\/p>\n

As observed by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015), \u201cchange has become the norm to sustain their success and existence\u201d (p. 234). Constant change becoming a norm is the rationale that many argue make Lewin\u2019s 3-step model irrelevant, since it is no longer an option for organizations to \u2018refreeze\u2019 (Biech, 2007). This is because for organizations to stay relevant in their environment, they can not return to a state of being \u2018frozen\u2019 anymore. Instead, most organizations need to be continuously in Lewin\u2019s second step – changing – to meet the constantly changing environment they face. This made way for a more complex process to manage change \u2013 Kotter\u2019s eight-step model.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Theories & Models Aligned with My Approach to Leadership<\/strong><\/p>\n

My personal approach to leadership aligns most with Kouzes and Posner\u2019s leadership model (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). This model describes five leadership practices that make up Kouzes and Posner\u2019s concept of \u2018exemplary leadership\u2019. These include \u201cmodeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act and encouraging the heart\u201d (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, p. 13, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). I think this approach resonates with me most because of how it aligns with the leadership ideals that I strive for, including: being consistent in what I say and do, enforcing common goals in discussions to form a collaborative vision, continually questioning the status quo, empowering others whenever possible and instilling enthusiasm for a project within others.<\/p>\n

In terms of my organizational context of learning design contracting, the theories that aligned with my leadership approach were Theory O and Chaos Theory, as described in \u2018Models of Change\u2019 by Biech (2007). One way that Biech (2007) described Theory O fits with one of my major leadership goals\u2013 building bridges. I aim to build bridges between myself and my clients, as well as myself as a learning designer with the learners that I design the learning for. \"\"To do this, I implement many elements of Theory O in my design, as identified by Biech (2007). This includes an emphasis on learning a client\u2019s culture, so that it can be cultivated within the learning I create. Biech (2007) enforces the importance of how change will fail if it is too far from the culture. \u00a0Also, a major design goal for me is to increase employee engagement with the learning. This is consistent with the element of increased employee participation in Theory O (Biech, 2007).<\/p>\n

With my fundamental analysis background of seeking trends and insights within large sets of data, Chaos Theory is a natural fit for me. I believe that one of my roles as a leader is to be\u00a0aware\u00a0of\u00a0and identify \u201corderly patterns\u201d within the chaos that exists in most organizations (Biech, 2007, p. 11). As a leader who is very analytical in personal nature, I continually evaluate organizational environments for these patterns and trends to seek out areas that I can target for an organization to work on or that may benefit them to reduce. This theory describes a part of the process that I use to develop recommendations for my clients as a leader of projects they retain me for.<\/p>\n

In the future, I\u2019d like to implement the Appreciative Inquiry approach, as it compliments my positive approach to problem-solving. I also think it would be very satisfying to identify completely idealistic solutions and rationalize as a team whether they are realistic or possible for an organization. I believe this would unify multiple perspectives and satiate people\u2019s need to evaluate multiple alternatives to find an ultimate solution. I believe it is also very empowering for people to be a part of the decision-making process for the solution that the leader will ultimately determine. It also allows them to gain an appreciation that not all good ideas are effective solutions for situations faced by the organization.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Leadership\u2019s Role in Managing Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

I believe that the biggest roles for leaders in managing change are to be aware of change, acknowledge change and challenge the current state. These roles are specified within Biech\u2019s (2007) six-step CHANGE model. Also, since planning is crucial to effective change, leaders need to take an active role in planning a change prior to designing it (Biech, 2007)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Source: Figure 3-2, CHANGE Model, Biech (2007)<\/em><\/p>\n

In managing change according to Goleman (2000, as cited in Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015) and Haidar (2006, as cited in Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015), leaders play an integral role with three functions. First, they play a decision-maker role on how, when and whether their organization will respond to a change in the business environment. Second, they play a role in aligning the organization with that decision as well as with the changing environment in general. Third, related to their role of alignment, leaders play a role in motivating people to implement the change response decision.<\/p>\n

Many change management researchers also advocate an importance for organizations to be ready for change, called \u2018organizational readiness for change\u2019 (Weiner, 2009). To increase organizational readiness for change, Weiner (2009) states a major role for leaders is to be consistent in both their messages and actions. If not, people will not perceive that the organization is ready for the change and this can cause issues with organizational alignment and implementation of change decisions. This supports Biech’s (2007) assertion that to successfully manage change, leaders need to present a \u201cstrong united front, ensuring commitment to the initiative\u201d (para. 42). Weiner (2009) also asserts that leaders can play a key role in increasing change valence, defined as the value that organizational members give to change. Leaders\u2019 support for a change increases the value that an organizational member puts on it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Unique Challenges in Managing Change for Learning in Digital Environments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Feldstein (2017) discusses two shifts that pertain to digital learning environments. The first shift, the increased availability of \u201cpedagogy-specific digital tools\u201d (para. 7), is a part of the second shift, the expansion of what digital learning environments entail. In relation to these shifts, Feldstein (2017) discusses unique challenges in managing learning for digital learning environments including:<\/p>\n